[philologos]

Originally Posted by CerebralCortex

On the probability of a "God".

On the agnosticism thing: when philologos tries to show the distinction between atheism and agnosticism he's missing what it actually means to be agnostic. The definition of God in Christianity is so far from fitting with reality that to consider agnosticism a midway point between atheism and theism is nonsense. I'm an agnostic about what I don't know. Evaluating the Christian God using logic and reason, it fails, especially in light of things like free will, incompatible properties and especially things like the physical nature of person hood and our interaction with the physical world or should I say the inescapable position of the human pattern within physical nature.

My definitions take into account both agnostic atheism and agnostic theism if you read the post. I knew this issue would come up and I've already discussed it in my post.

I have distinguished de-facto agnosticism from agnostic atheism and agnostic theism because the very fact that you are an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist means that you regard one as being more likely than the other.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by philologos

We need to look into how likely it is that God can exist before we can discuss as to what nature that God had, or how He related to people.

We really don't, and again this simply highlights the flawed thinking of a lot of theistic arguments, the proposition that if we establish he can exist this is some how support for the argument that he does.

Using a real world example, if you asked a physicist 150 years ago how likely is it that time itself slows down the fast you move they would have probably said very unlikely. Yet that is exactly what we find.

Anything could exist, anything could be true, particularly if we suppose that this thing can have any property imaginable and exist outside of space time and not conform to any laws of nature.

Supposing that this is or isn't likely is rather irrelevant. The only thing you need to do is demonstrate that the most accurate explanation for why humans believe is that they are really interacting with a deity. Anything else is just philosophical smoke and mirrors.

[Quo Vadis]

Originally Posted by Wicknight

I'm pretty sure no one who given a choice would choose eternal darkness in a lake of sulfur.

The only thing an atheist picks is that Christians have not presented a compelling argument for the existence of their deity over any other deity.

This of course means that the atheist won't accept the offer of salvation from Jesus Christ and will be punished for their sinful behavior if it turns out the Christian God is the real one.

But no one chooses eternal darkness. God chooses that for them. Being omnipotent he could have just as easily chosen eternity in another blissful paradise as being what awaits non-believers. The idea of a place separated from God and that this place must be horrible are both rather illogical propositions. God can certainly make such a place, and choose to send people their. But that is his decision, not theirs, such a place does not have to exist as it is described.

But then if the idea of this hellish place wasn't taught to potential believers that wouldn't be much of a motivation to join the religion now, would it

An Atheist will never believe in God, that's eternal darkness. They will spend eternity blaming God for their own choice, and there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth. "I was right to be wrong, how could I have known, God is still wrong, it was not all my fault, I want no part of such an unfair unjust God etc. etc. etc. etc." I keep telling you the gates of hell are bolted from the inside. Exactly as Lucifer and the fallen have rebelled against God chosen their own path.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by Quo Vadis

Believers see God everywhere, God is a sprit and all beauty and love is God.

You don't see God anywhere. If you did the photos entering your eyes could be recorded on photo-sensitive paper.

You see things you choose to explain by saying "God did it", and as your post itself points out one has to be a believer first in order to come to that conclusion.

Originally Posted by philologos

No, it’s actually perfectly devised, as using your own God given intellect you're free to believe or not, and the freedom of free will remains intact.

I'm free to believe my laser measuring device as well but it gives much more accurate results than my own eyes. Despite this my free will remains intact, shockingly

God, if he exists, made humans bad at personal assessment and good at empirical study. He then decided to only appear in the form of person assessment. This supposition seems rather implausible.

On the other hand if God is simply imagined then it would be necessary for believers to suppose he cannot be empirically studied because he is not actually there.

[philologos]

Originally Posted by Wicknight

We really don't, and again this simply highlights the flawed thinking of a lot of theistic arguments, the proposition that if we establish he can exist this is some how support for the argument that he does.

Simply put Wicknight do you want to discuss the question or not? The question pertains to God's existence. If we can establish God's existence it's a starting point for a lot of other discussions we have which are all directly dependent on this question.

Edit: In your last post you've attributed your second post to me whereas it is actually Quo Vadis'.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by Quo Vadis

An Atheist does not believe in the afterlife, that's eternal darkness.

An atheist does not have power over where we go after we die. God does.

If God gave an atheist the power to choose where they went it wouldn't be to eternal darkness and suffering. Therefore the idea that an atheist chooses this is frankly ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Quo Vadis

They will spend eternity blaming God for their own choice

Not if God gave them a choice. If I ended up in a blissful paradise full of other atheists and empty of Christians after death I wouldn't blame God for a thing.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by philologos

Simply put Wicknight do you want to discuss the question or not? The question pertains to God's existence.

I am more than happy to discuss the question so long as you appreciate that what you are supposing is important to the answer really isn't.

You can attempt to explain first that a creator is likely and then jump to it being the Christian God, but you should understand that this is terrible logic.

I've had many discussions with theists including yourselves where when this is pointed out you guys throw your hands up and say oh we wouldn't be convinced by anything. So I'm getting in on the ground floor, if you precede with this and we don't find it convincing you only have yourself to blame, like the sales man in Fanny's post who can't convince the housewife to buy his invisible drain cleaner.

[Quo Vadis]

Originally Posted by Wicknight

An atheist does not have power over where we go after we die.

Originally Posted by Wicknight

Not if God gave them a choice.

Athiests are given the choice
An atheist decides his own fate

Originally Posted by Wicknight

If I ended up in a blissful paradise full of other atheists and empty of Christians after death I wouldn't blame God for a thing.

Now you're getting it . . . I told you the gates were bolted from the inside . . . you are the company you keep.

[Fanny Cradock]

Originally Posted by Wicknight

And if those reasons don't stand up to much examination the person won't buy it.

How reasonable would it be then for the salesman to blame the customer for this, rather than himself and his poor reasons?

I think you stretch an already fallacious analogy beyond it limits. If somebody deems the claims of Christianity to be nonsense then I would expect that they move on.

[philologos]

Originally Posted by Wicknight

I am more than happy to discuss the question so long as you appreciate that what you are supposing is important to the answer really isn't.

You can attempt to explain first that a creator is likely and then jump to it being the Christian God, but you should understand that this is terrible logic.

I think as it is the prerequisite to practically every single other discussion we have on this forum that it is important. You're welcome to come to any conclusion you like but it seems that you're denying the obvious.

Not at all. We start with establishing the existence of God as Creator so we can actually analyse the claims of Christianity that depend on this being established as a prerequisite.

Skipping along before we've even dealt with the most rudimentary claim seems absurd.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by Quo Vadis

It's your loss, not his.

And yet I'm blamed for not believing his story. How does that work?

[ShooterSF]

Originally Posted by Quo Vadis

There cannot be, because if there was it would remove all free will, and we would be nothing but automatons serving God.

Like any loving parent would, God wants us to love him voluntarily, hence our free will to choose to believe or not.

What about Moses' free will? Did god not prove he existed to Moses? Was his free will taken from him?

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by Fanny Cradock

I think you stretch an already fallacious analogy beyond it limits. If somebody deems the claims of Christianity to be nonsense then I would expect that they move on.

And they are blamed by Christians, which was my point.

Blamed for not believing, blamed for rejecting God (rather than what they are actually doing, rejecting the unsupported claims of the Christians) and in a lot of cases blamed for being materialistic and immoral for doing so.

All because the Christian's argument for why he is correct wasn't convincing enough.

I would have much less issue with religion if the presences of atheists just made you guys all go "Umm, maybe our arguments aren't that convincing, can't really blame these guys for not believing us"

Unfortunately religion tends not to work like that.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by philologos

I think as it is the prerequisite to practically every single other discussion we have on this forum that it is important. You're welcome to come to any conclusion you like but it seems that you're denying the obvious.

Not at all. We start with establishing the existence of God as Creator so we can actually analyse the claims of Christianity that depend on this being established as a prerequisite.

Skipping along before we've even dealt with the most rudimentary claim seems absurd.

Ok, I look forward to telling you I told you so.

What Jakkass is an argument for the likelihood of the existence of a creator deity.

[philologos]

We need to settle some terms of discussion. How do you think we should do this? I've proposed an option that you don't agree with so what else do you propose. It must be a discussion in that both parties contribute on an equal basis.